 
Smitch
Member
Username: Smitch
Post Number: 35
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 3:34 pm: |    |
Yeah Kwame. Get a job and pay off that legal bill |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2922
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 3:45 pm: | |
Good thing the casino jobs pay so well (I've always been told they don't), because some of that work seems pretty damned demeaning. |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2690
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 4:05 pm: | |
Typical idiocy of this forum
Quote.....
I never understood this: What's the motivation for companies to test their employees for pot? I understand not wanting to hire a heroin addict, but it's hard to see why MGM cares whether their bartenders smoke. Do they get discounts from insurance companies or federal tax breaks, or what?.........
Its all dope the pot head thinks the same way the heroin addict does...................have any of you noticed that the reEfer dealers are just as violent as the coke dealer.........there the same fucking person.
I've known junkies that have maintained habits and kept jobs for decades....
The Mayor says something that makes sense and the typical dope seeking mentality of some forumers comes out.
Patrick is right this is a choice..........getting high or working.......... |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2691
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 4:05 pm: | |
Typical idiocy of this forum
Quote.....
I never understood this: What's the motivation for companies to test their employees for pot? I understand not wanting to hire a heroin addict, but it's hard to see why MGM cares whether their bartenders smoke. Do they get discounts from insurance companies or federal tax breaks, or what?.........
Its all dope the pot head thinks the same way the heroin addict does...................have any of you noticed that the reEfer dealers are just as violent as the coke dealer.........there the same fucking person.
I've known junkies that have maintained habits and kept jobs for decades....
The Mayor says something that makes sense and the typical dope seeking mentality of some forumers comes out.
Patrick is right this is a choice..........getting high or working.......... |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 161
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 4:14 pm: | |
The city should make a deal with him. Everyone stops smoking pot if he can get police to respond within 10 minutes of placing a call to 911. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 10717
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 5:13 pm: | |
LOL, CL preaching again.
It is NOT the same, not anywhere close. It is NOT a one-or-other choice...that is simply a stupid-ass conclusion, I don't care who agrees with you.
The substances are not an issue, overuse of them and ABuse are merely symptoms of a deeper problem...but you already know that.
LEGALIZE IT, KWAME-IZE IT!!
If the mayor can take a toke with his crew, we should all be able to...marijuana is benign, more tame than liquor to the system...both the mere human system and society at large.
We all need some form of vent from the frustrations of life...some find their release through religion, some exercise, some vicariously through the TeeVee, some shortcut through direct chemical distraction, both with alcohol, liquor, and other naturally and un-naturally produced drugs.
All are perfectly valid, some more worthwhile than others.
Nature provides these substances that mimic or match chemicals produced by our own bodies, it is up to each of us to learn our limits on consumption and keep them benefits instead of addictions...there is NO fine line between the two, either. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 10718
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 5:14 pm: | |
Umcs,
I won't be a party to that 'deal', obviously!
heh |
Bratt
Member
Username: Bratt
Post Number: 693
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 6:43 pm: | |
I tell you. When I stop for coffee in the morning at the gas station, there are always plenty of folks in there buying that wrap paper. When I go to the store after work.....plenty of folks buying that wrap paper. And they are not wrapping their own tobacco.
I know alot of people who won't get a job because they wouldn't pass the drug screen. I say, get one where they don't drug test you. |
Hybridy
Member
Username: Hybridy
Post Number: 171
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 6:43 pm: | |
legalization is not the answer
decriminalization is key here |
Detroitbill
Member
Username: Detroitbill
Post Number: 340
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 7:30 pm: | |
Its so true about their being jobs available in the area if people would just get the training.
I have a friend in IT at Cranbrook who is trying to find 2 ITS helpdesk people, has been trying for 7 months and cant fill the jobs,, Reasonable pay, great benefits, great workplace and still cant fill them. She is in shock,, If anybody knows anyone qualified hit me up,, You would have to know how to draw a network BTW |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 7:46 pm: | |
I love the idea of a guy who never had to hustle for shit, born into the lap of luxury, into our regional political dynasty, a guy who's had the way smoothed for him by political machinery from Day One, having the temerity to tell people to work, especially when we pay him to go off on luxury junkets and shit. |
Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules
Post Number: 205
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:29 pm: | |
Geez Detroitnerd - My guess is not matter what he says or does you won't like him. You probably don't even live in the city. |
Steelworker
Member
Username: Steelworker
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:47 pm: | |
im a steelworker and i had to get Both a pee test and a Hair test. Little crazy since IM A FREAKIN steelworker factory job crap. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 345
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 12:54 am: | |
WWOOWW,
hard to believe he said it , but i have to tip my hat to hizzoner.
he said what what was needed, a little tough love.
people need a good kick in the ass once in awhile to get themselves motivated. we all can't carry the water for everyone all the time. |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2692
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 1:55 am: | |
Gannon we have had this debate before. I have the good fortune of being on both sides of the coin so to speak. I have been a pothead .and I have been a junkie. And honestly speaking the motivation to find pot is the same as it is to find heroin. The desire to get and be high on either substance comes from the same place.
Of course the smokers think they have some sort of moral loftiness.They think they are different; they are not different.The only difference is a the demonization of the opiate addict.
As I have said I don' care what anyone does.I just find it amusing and yes idiotic and junkie like thinking that on this forum the immediate reaction is to not support the mayors idea but to defend marijuana use..........I am certainly not surprised. |
Exmotowner
Member
Username: Exmotowner
Post Number: 415
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 9:17 am: | |
GO KK. I've smoked pot all my life but if it came between a job and a joint, I'd be getting clean. He said what he needed to say, whether or not it will make a difference is doubtful but it suer sounded good to the rest of the country! LOL |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 10726
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 10:03 am: | |
CL,
I keep at you because it seems you don't get it...your addiction experience is a tiny part of a much larger whole. Your extrapolations to the whole population do NOT necessarily apply, and that has NO bearing on whether I like to smoke dope or not.
Everyone needs some vent from the frustrations of life, if they DON'T learn to replace that particular sensory distraction with something else...then they've opened themselves up to failure...whether they have a support group and/or active open-ness to a Concerned Other. If the group doesn't support this replacement distraction, 'going to the group' will become the new addiction.
Leaving one sensory distraction creates a sort of vacuum within the psyche...you just happen to have had a loss of personal control with some substances, and bought the man's line that they are somehow bad things.
My expansion of the discussion is that substances are just substances, it is up to us to recognize what each does to our particular metabolisms and accomodate or eliminate them entirely. But it should be up to the individual, and society should NOT attempt to eliminate or control entire classes of naturally growing herbs and the distilled versions of their active parts.
That is where I come up with that statement that religion or exercise training or any other of a myriad of mere human distractions need be introduced if one really wants to avoid another sensory compunction and NOT return to it cyclically. Some times we are strong against your previous weakness, other periods we are weaker than each of us has ever been. Mere cyclical human nature.
We're not too far off on this, you just make broadbased comments that I simply cannot allow to stand unchecked...especially when you start going after substances that occur naturally.
That is saying God makes mistakes...and I'm not sure that is the case.
Back on topic, my Livonia Friend and the recently recruited Math Alchemist and I were at Zeff's for our Saturday morning breakfast extravaganza when Livonia perked up and said he figured why Kwame said this odd commentary at this particular time of the year.
He was banking on the weather change...he noticed everyone out on their porches enjoying our early Indian Summer basking in the hazy cloud of cannabis and knew they would't be hanging when the weather got colder.
So, this chilly weekend, when anyone drives around the city, they'll see the empty porches and deduce that Kwame is SOME kind of leader!
Cheers! |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 351
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 10:44 am: | |
you may have something there,
let's see if he repeats it around July 4th. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2392
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
"What if everyone in Kwame's administration had to take random drug tests?"
Some would pass, some would fail...so what? If you smoke week, you don't get a job, regardless of what people in Kwame's administration are doing...
So the real question is, do you want to work, or do you just want to justify your laziness by saying that other people engage in the same type counter-productive activity? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 11:49 am: | |
So, this chilly weekend, when anyone drives around the city, they'll see the empty porches and deduce that Kwame is SOME kind of leader!
Sounds like he came up with that after a hit of the chief, lol. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3755
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 11:51 am: | |
Well, it seems that too many folks think the rules shouldn't apply to them, nothing new here. Somehow they have been programmed to believe that they should be able to engage in self-destructive behavior and it should be excused and accommodated. I wonder where they ever got these notions from?  |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 10729
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 1:54 pm: | |
Being Free-Will Mere Human Beings stuck in a nature full of myriad choices and experiences?! |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2693
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 2:27 pm: | |
I am not here to discuss god gannon. My fundamental point on this is that it is a characteristic of substance abuse to defend getting high when employment or some other form of accountability is in question.
I don't deny that I am a minority. However there are many people that would quit smoking pot or whatever they do because they want to keep their jobs. Those that don't or are not willing to quit quite possibly have a substance abuse problem
What I take issue with here is the defending of marijuana use because it seems very much like the guy that would rather lose his job then quit. |
Eriedearie
Member
Username: Eriedearie
Post Number: 6
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 6:41 pm: | |
Detroitbill - my nephew is looking for an IT job. Just finished schooling. I would like to be able to send him to Cranbrook - how does he get in to see your friend. I'll need some information. Thanks for the lead. |
Ordinary
Member
Username: Ordinary
Post Number: 257
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 9:06 pm: | |
I agree with Citylover. The motivation to get high is the same. I smoked weed for years and always wanted to quit. I was psychologically addicted. I was always nervous because of random testing at work. I occasionally would take Mondays off just in case the nurse showed up. Make a long story short, I got caught and suspended. In retrospect it was a good thing that happened. I haven't smoked weed in eight years. It's just another crutch.
Is it the company's business what a person does at home? No. But when I'm out on a job, do I want the guy digging with the excavator next to a live gas main to be high? Hell no!
Gannon, I used to use the same reasoning. You are probably psychologically addicted but don't want to admit it. |
Ghetto_butterfly
Member
Username: Ghetto_butterfly
Post Number: 762
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 10:28 pm: | |
The thing with smoking is, what you do at home, stays at home. Meaning, whatever you do at home, in your own time, outside of the job should be your own business. For the most part, it does not affect your performance on the job, in your daily life. Just like going out to the bar on a Saturday night and having some drinks usually does not affect your job and daily life. As long as you only do it it in your leisure time and in moderation. In my experience, most people smoking pot or drinking alcohol are doing just that. It's a different story with hard drugs or alcohol addiction. As far as I know and seen, pot is not addictive. Alcohol can be, but for the most part, people do have drinks, yet are not addicted. But people don't get tested for alcohol at a job interview. Just for pot. The hair test goes back several months, meaning you could have had a hit just once and get rejected for a job. Stupid. At my company we had several people who interviewd great and had exactly the skills we were looking for, but they failed the hair test. We couldn't hire them, so instead we had to go for the second rate applicants who didn't have what we were looking for but hey, they passed the hair test. For all I know, they might be alcoholics who drink themselves into oblivion every night and beat their wives and children black an blue, but at least they passed the pot test. |
Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet
Post Number: 900
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 11:20 pm: | |
Well Ghetto butterfly, supporting the dope dealer is not the way to get a job these days. Legalize pot? Good luck. We wouldn't have testing today if it wasn’t for the Exxon Valdez and those pot heads who crashed their freight train while high, and the pilots who flew drunk, and so on. So now we all have to drop, including me (I was drug AND alcohol tested last week). I am sure there are plenty of skilled pot smokers you could hire, but who would want your product knowing this? Yes Ghetto butterfly, I know how “harmless” pot is. But I still don’t want my kids’ school bus driver stoned. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 355
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:34 am: | |
question to ask is, would you want your children to smoke pot?
No response needed, I know the answer.
Then again most of us have tried it, including me, with no major repercussions, except that you get a little paranoid, want to eat something and aren't as motivated as before, hmmm |
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 208
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 4:10 am: | |
For those that are under the impression that pot is addictive..... sorry but you have some alternate form of dysfunction or disability. Weed is not physically addictive. Mentally, maybe, but that is piggybacked with deeper personal problems. Just take a moment to google "WEED _ ADDICTIVE" and you will see.
I second the motion to have KK abide by his own advice. Easy for him to say this to the public when he is safe and sound in his manoogian mansion in his new pool.
How the hell is the pot-smoking public even going to get wind of this message when KK uses media avenues that have little chance of reaching the dopies? Maybe a parent or two will pass his "inspiring" words along, but my bet is this "message" will fly right over their heads and mix into the smokey cloud that they produce.
- TAKEN FROM THE ARTICLE -
"Kilpatrick's tough talk echoed his March State of the City address, when he urged African-American Detroiters to stop black-on-black crime and to assume responsibility for Detroit's future."
Whites should take this like a slap in the face. Respecting the overwhelming black population in the city, there is no reason to assume that whites are not subject to as many crimes per-1000 as blacks are in the city. He should rehearse his lines more often.
I do find it simply stupid that a person can beat his family and pets, wash down a bottle a night, smoke 2 packs of cigs a day, squander his savings at the casino and/or engage in all unhealthy and detrimental lifestyles. but still be held accountable for his/her marijuana consumption. Especially bartenders...... pick your battles.
Now, all that aside....... I have to admit that this is the most productive thing i have seen in the direction of unemployment and drugs in a long time regarding detroit. I am also happy to hear about the increase in police officers and firemen. Good stuff! I applaud those responsible for these improvements, and especially KK if it is him directly.
BTW - CL...... don't be a dick..... K? |
Accraghana
Member
Username: Accraghana
Post Number: 92
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 7:32 am: | |
Structural unemployment is the term given for the phenomenon in which skills needed for job openings do not match the skills of those who are unemployed and in need of jobs.
There are few labor markets that do not face the structural unemployment issue. Detroit is not alone in this national phenomenon. In fact, the government and congress has steadily been increasing the number of H1-b visas in order to bring in foreigners for work in the high tech sector of the US economy, despite many Americans being out of work. One could make the same statement that if Americans get off the porch that they could get these jobs.
The fact of the matter is that people evolve into their situation. If a person dropped out of school in the 9th grade and did poorly the years they did attend, it’s going to be hard to be trainable, regardless of the number of training programs out there. If person did poorly in school to the point of flunking out or dropping out, how is training going to help them get a job when training is essentially schooling? If a person has trouble reading, attention deficit, comprehension issues or the like…. they will likely flunk training. They evolved into that situation and will have to evolve out of it via years of remedial schooling.
One thing that I am sure of is that there are not 55,000 job openings in the City of Detroit for the supposed 55,000 people looking for work. The way the mayor was quoted makes it seem like there is a job in Detroit for every Detroiter who wants to work. That is not even close to being true, despite the fact that there are job openings. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2397
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 9:17 am: | |
To all of you people arguing for the legalization of pot or the suspension of drug testing...
Look, most companies have a rule that you can't smoke pot if you want to work for them, ok...that is the rule...and your belief that they should not have this rule is NOT a justification for not having a job... |
Goat
Member
Username: Goat
Post Number: 9871
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:31 am: | |
What if the rule was also you can't have an alchoholic beverage? |
Detroitbill
Member
Username: Detroitbill
Post Number: 342
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:32 am: | |
Erie, do you have an email, I can send you a contact email,, thanks, |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
"What if the rule was also you can't have an alchoholic beverage?"
If that were the rule, and you drank alcoholic beverages, you would not be employed by any company that had such a rule...
Get it? Pretty simple, eh? |
Goat
Member
Username: Goat
Post Number: 9872
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:55 am: | |
Not really because it could open up a whole can of worms. Can't eat red meat, can only eat kosher. Too tall, too short, too white, too black....Now I know these are discriminatory but what a person does at home should have no effect on their job. Doing it while at work, fine. Fired. But what a person does at home is their business. If they get caught doing an illegal act then sure, they could be fired.
But I believe this type of sentiment creates a lot of issues. What if the company doesn't want employees of same sex couples? The list goes on and on.
Get it? Pretty simple, eh? |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 11:15 am: | |
quote:Maybe a parent or two will pass his "inspiring" words along,
I'm one of them. Here is the note I mailed yesterday to my son, an unemployed, recent college drop-out (whose SAT and ACT scores put him in the top 5%tile) who is now "toking" and living off the generosity of a couple of his former college classmates:
Dear XXXXX,
Now is the time for you to decide whether or not you're going to "stay on the porch" for the rest of your life.
Please read the entire enclosed newspaper article to understand what we're getting at.
If you decide you're ready to "get off the porch", give us a call and we can discuss any help you may need.
Love,
Dad & Mom
Weed may not be physically addictive but there is ample evidence that it impairs physical reactions, saps personal initiative and with extended use, makes it very difficult for the user to fully participate in productive society.
You can debate the merits of marijuana decriminalization all you want, but even if it is decriminalized, an employer will still be within their rights to test and terminate for substance abuse. |
Jrvass
Member
Username: Jrvass
Post Number: 263
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 11:20 am: | |
Okay, I was on t-jesus's side until Goat posted.
Witness Weyco. A company in Okemos MI that forbade it's employees from smoking tobacco due to "increased health-care costs". Not just in the building, or on the property... altogether. Even at home.
Irregardless of the effects of tobacco smoking on health, the tax money it raises for the state and Fed. govt.'s programs... it is a legal product for those 18 and over. The population of Weyco employees.
What if a Weyco employee receives their health care coverage through their spouse's plan. Tough. Can I refuse health care and take the cash equivalent? Nope.
Slippery slopes. |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2695
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 11:26 am: | |
A rather specious argument Goat...........those things you mention have not caused the damage that drugs and alcohol have.
My personal opinion is to be against drug testing.My fundamental point of this thread is that the reaction of some to defend pot use, to wail and moan for legalization, is the same as a substance abuser justifying giving up a job to continue getting high. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 11:37 am: | |
You guys are all missing the point here....
I'm not arguing for or against the justification for an employer prohibiting certain activities...this thread is not about that...
The point is that one's decision to engage in certain activities that employers clearly prohibit is NOT a justification for not having a job...
For example, if a Detroit resident is unable to acquire or maintain a job at MGM Grand because of its drug testing policy, he cannot claim that companies like MGM Grand are at fault for his lack of employment since he is the one that is knowingly violating the company's rule
Now, you are free to state your opinion that you should be permitted to engage in activities that your employer sees as detrimental to its business and still maintain your employment if you want to...
but as long as the rule is actually in place, you have a choice to either follow and it and reap the benefits or ignore it and be left out in the cold... |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2402
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 11:50 am: | |
Jrvass:
The legality of the activities that people engage in are not relevant...
As a business owner, you have the right to protect businesses interests and maintain its image in the way you see fit...
Employment is not a right in this country...we're all free to start our own businesses, but you choose not to do this and instead go work for someone else, then you need to follow the rules they set out for you, within reason, of course...
Now, of course, this leads us to the question of what is reasonable, and the answer will always differ from person to person...
I know you probably think that you would be fair and more lenient that some of these companies we're talking about, but what happens when your idea of what is fair, permissible and reasonable differs from someone else's?
All things are relative, and as fair as you may be, to someone with a free spirit, you might seem like a fascist dictator to them, whereas from your perspective you are merely trying to protect your company's interests and maintain its image...
If you owned a business, don't you think its necessary to have this type of authority?
(Message edited by thejesus on October 14, 2007) |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 6502
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:08 pm: | |
quote:
If you owned a business, don't you think its necessary to have this type of authority?
No! They are employed by the business, not owned by the business. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2403
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:23 pm: | |
^you're still looking at it from only the employees perspective and not from the employer's perspective...you're telling me that if you were a business owner that you wouldn't have the need to set rules that prohibit your employees form doing things that you feel can be detrimental or embarrassing to your business
and it's silly for you to act like this is akin to the business exerting ownership over their employees when no one is forcing them to keep working for a company that has rules they don't agree with.. |
Nuclearxwinter
Member
Username: Nuclearxwinter
Post Number: 28
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:36 pm: | |
Strand testing is just way too invasive. It is incredibly difficult to find a job in this city and when a company like MGM opens its' doors and allows people the chance to get a decent job, they shouldn't be turned away just because of a hair strand test that shows that they smoked pot several months ago. It is facetious!
I have been here for nearly a year and still have not found a decent full time job, even with all of my years of customer service experience in nicer establishments and it kills me that I will not even be considered for a job at MGM because of something that I do very, *very* rarely. Personally, I see drugs as tools for consciousness expansion and prefer not to abuse them in any way (even weed) and it is incredibly hard for me to believe that I can not get a job even mopping floors because I choose to do certain things that I feel greatly aid in my own spiritual growth and understanding.
And yes, MGM does get tax breaks of some sort. This is why they do the hair strand testing... Kind of disturbing if you ask me. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2937
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:36 pm: | |
quote:In fact, the government and congress has steadily been increasing the number of H1-b visas in order to bring in foreigners for work in the high tech sector of the US economy, despite many Americans being out of work
This is a crock - there are a lot of underemployed engineers out there, but the companies with open positions are looking for employees with ludicrous levels of experience. It's really just a ploy to bring in lower paid foreign technicals. There are few places that hire entry level engineers anymore. |
Jrvass
Member
Username: Jrvass
Post Number: 264
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:38 pm: | |
T-jesus,
So, if I was a business owner who wanted to avoid embarassment in certain neighborhoods... I could offer employment to those who are not (insert ethnic slurs here)? |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 501
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:44 pm: | |
Quote: "But I believe this type of sentiment creates a lot of issues. What if the company doesn't want employees of same sex couples? "
Companies don't want morons that they are 100% liable for to be sawing their arms off and driving hi-lo's into co-workers that they are also 100% liable for. Easy enough to understand? It seems like harrassment, the big bad company infringing on your right to get high, do a self test. The next time you're at your manufacturing type job, pretend that if anyone gets hurt, you are 100% financially responsible for their injuries. Would it be ok for them to fire up or knock back a few?
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
And the "Ya don't get hooked on pot" argument is weak. A person can get hooked on anything, Gambling, Porn, etc. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2404
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 12:48 pm: | |
Jarvass:
There's an obvious difference between discriminating against someone for a trait that they have no control over and that has no bearing on their ability to preform the job, and denying someone employment because of an activity that they CHOOSE to engage in that can very reasonably be detrimental to their ability to do the job...
(Message edited by thejesus on October 14, 2007) |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 1:06 pm: | |
There's an obvious difference between discriminating against someone for a trait that they have no control over and that has no bearing on their ability to preform the job, and denying someone employment because of an activity that they CHOOSE to engage in that can very reasonably be detrimental to their ability to do the job...
So should a company have the right tell you not to have sex while you are their employee? |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 6503
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 1:16 pm: | |
At least not on Company time! |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 6504
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 1:29 pm: | |
quote:and it's silly for you to act like this is akin to the business exerting ownership over their employees when no one is forcing them to keep working for a company that has rules they don't agree with..
I actually agree with you on some points.
The basic question is how much intrusion into the private lives of its employees should a business be permitted?
And should it apply across the board?
There is quite a difference between how a manager's behavior and a janitor's private life might reflect on the company.
Some quite intriguing questions have been brought up here. |
Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 2405
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 1:32 pm: | |
"So should a company have the right tell you not to have sex while you are their employee?"
A company should not be and is not able to tell its employees that they cannot engage in certain activities unless they can make a reasonable argument that the activity is or has the potential to be detrimental to their business.
Now an employer could try to set forth some silly argument about how their employees sex lives could detrimentally affect their business, but I think they would be hard pressed to find a court that would accept such a rule as reasonable and enforce it...
By contrast, it's very easy to make a reasonable argument that drug use does or at least has the potential to detrimentally affect an employer's business...
Either way, as long as the rule is in place and you know it's in place, you cannot claim that your unemployment it is the fault of the employer simply because they have a rule that you refuse to follow...
(Message edited by thejesus on October 14, 2007) |
Eriedearie
Member
Username: Eriedearie
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 2:50 pm: | |
DETROITBILL - Yes "eriedearie024@aol.com". I appreciate your input on behalf of my nephew. I await the contact info. Thanks so much! |
Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules
Post Number: 207
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 3:22 pm: | |
I think the mayor is right on with his statements! I am not anti-drug but to get and keep a job you need to get off the weed! |
Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 502
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 5:29 pm: | |
Re: An employer concerned about what an employee does on their off hours. They have every reason to be. Often times a hung-over person is just as dangerous as an intoxicated one. And about as productive. |
Ravine
Member
Username: Ravine
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 7:14 pm: | |
Hizzonor's point was not made in an absolutely direct way, but it's still a good one. I don't think he looks down on citizens coolin' out on their porches, and he probably doesn't have a major issue about folks smoking some weed. Whining about whether or not it's fair, or sensible, to test for weed is pointless. A lot of places do just that. If you truly want a job, you need to lay off weed smoking, at least during your job search. Kind of goes hand-in-hand with getting your lazy, sorry ass off the porch.
Folks who NEED a job, who don't have some handy relative or friend off of whom to freeload and sponge, tend to understand, and accept, this point without much hand-wringing.
I'm not particularly fond of Kilpatrick, but lazy he's not. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 368
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 8:57 pm: | |
agree, just need to kick yourself in the ass and maybe get motivated, drugs don't help that... |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.